Antique kalis for comment

kai · 23rd August 2024, 08:49 PM

Apologies for being ambiguous, Ray!

I was trying to ask for the tang's cross-section - looks like it actually is rectangular (width greater than thickness) as typical for non-early Moro kris.

Regards,
Kai

xasterix · 24th August 2024, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Apologies for being ambiguous, Ray!

I was trying to ask for the tang's cross-section - looks like it actually is rectangular (width greater than thickness) as typical for non-early Moro kris.

Regards,
Kai

Halloo again Kai, yes it is indeed rectangular cross section- consistent with other 1800s krises I've opened up before

Ian · 24th August 2024, 11:52 PM

Ray, thank you for sharing this interesting sword!

If we step back from the sword itself, and think about why Moro kris increased in length and width relative to "early" versions, the prevailing theory is that this was a response to longer and heavier Spanish swords. As you and I have discussed, the same response occurred with several Filipino weapons (e.g., barung) in response to the Japanese swords being used during WWII.

If these kris adaptations in response to Spanish swords are correct, why would the Moros wait until the 19th C to implement this change? Surely, one would expect this to occur earlier in the encounter. After all, the two sides had been fighting each other since the 16th C!

Looking at the history of the so-called Moro Wars between Spain and the Filipino Muslims, Spain tried to invade the Maguindanao Sultanate in 1591, briefly establishing a garrison in 1596 but abandoned it the following year under intense pressure.

The Maguindanao Moros then went on the offensive with several large-scale raids against early Spanish settlements in the Visayas. These were largely successful, and caused the Spanish to reconsider their strategies. A series of peace treaties were signed in 1605, 1608, 1609. War broke out again in 1628, but this time with the Sulu Sultanate following a provocative Spanish act against a Sulu envoy. Spain mounted several large-scale attacks on Jolo in 1628 and 1630, which were repelled. To this point, Spanish successes were few.

The Spanish changed tactics and decided to establish a forward base on enemy soil. In 1635, Spain captured Zamboanga and used it as a base for attacking the Sulu and Maguindanao sultanates. The Maguindanao capital of Lamitan was captured in 1637. Attacks against the Sulu capital resulted in the capture of Jolo in 1638. In 1644, the Spanish needed to break off the war and return their troops to Manila to defend against a threatened Chinese attack. A peace treaty was signed in 1645 between Spain and the Moros.

Spain returned to Zamboanga in 1728 and built a massive fort. This led to further conflict but the Moros could not expel the Spanish. A stalemate ensued. Eventually peace treaties were signed in 1737.

Spain still dreamed of conquest over the Moros. In 1851, a large Spanish force reinvaded Jolo. From then until the end of the Spanish rule there were numerous conflicts as Spain sought to destroy the remaining power bases of the Moros. This would continue under American Colonial rule.

So where in this (brief) history would the Moros have decided to modify their kris to combat the larger Spanish swords? Would they have waited until 1851, despite serious existential threats in preceding centuries? I think not. More likely, this was a change implemented when Spain was inflicting defeats on the Moros on their home soil. This might date from the early 18th C, when Spain established its forward base in Zamboanaga, or perhaps earlier when Spain had its initial successes within the Moro homelands during the 1630s and 1640s.

Necessity is the mother of invention. When your home is under attack, change is essential to survival. A case can be made, I believe, for significant modifications to the kris as a weapon in the 17th and early 18th C. That such changes might continue with swords made later is to be expected.

I have written elsewhere that the current trend in dating Moro sword styles almost exclusively to the 19th and 20th C is mistaken. While the production of some swords may be attributed to this period, I believe the styles are often from (much) earlier times, and we give too little credit to Moro innovation during periods of threat.

Returning to your sword, Ray, I don't know when it was made. Could it be 18th C? Perhaps. The pommel looks old enough. However, I think the blade is not that old. It is missing the sogokan and "arrowhead" features of early styles. That's not to say it could not predate 1800, perhaps it is a simpler battle style from that period, but it's more likely 19th C IMHO.

Ian · 25th August 2024, 12:20 AM

Age of this sword was discussed in the previous post.

I think the style of this one is atypical for Moro work. Its dress appears to be Sulu: the previous twin asang asang and the hilt style would suggest that. However, the blade is unusual. Although a kalis (i.e., waved blade), the waves are very shallow to the extent that sharpening of the edge has almost eliminated them in places. Shallow luk are fairly common on wider examples of kris mostly from the 19th and 20th C.

A central panel of twist core extends almost the whole length of the blade. This is unusual for Moro blades, but is seen fairly commonly on Malayan blades with such a central panel. Also, Malayan kris blades usually have no sogokan or "arrow head" structures. The presence of an odo-odo (mid-line ridge) running the length of the blade is also consistent with a Malayan blade.

I can't tell if this is a blade made by a Malayan, or a Malayan blade style made by a Moro. My guess is that it is a Malayan blade that has been dressed in the Sulu style. There seem to be a few of these around, but usually with straight blades (sundang).

xasterix · 26th August 2024, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Age of this sword was discussed in the previous post.

I think the style of this one is atypical for Moro work. Its dress appears to be Sulu: the previous twin asang asang and the hilt style would suggest that. However, the blade is unusual. Although a kalis (i.e., waved blade), the waves are very shallow to the extent that sharpening of the edge has almost eliminated them in places. Shallow luk are fairly common on wider examples of kris mostly from the 19th and 20th C.

A central panel of twist core extends almost the whole length of the blade. This is unusual for Moro blades, but is seen fairly commonly on Malayan blades with such a central panel. Also, Malayan kris blades usually have no sogokan or "arrow head" structures. The presence of an odo-odo (mid-line ridge) running the length of the blade is also consistent with a Malayan blade.

I can't tell if this is a blade made by a Malayan, or a Malayan blade style made by a Moro. My guess is that it is a Malayan blade that has been dressed in the Sulu style. There seem to be a few of these around, but usually with straight blades (sundang).

Hullo Ian, thanks for the assessment!

Regarding the shallow-waved blade, this trend seems to be present in late 1800s Sulu-made kalis; I've had another pattern-weld kalis that also has shallow waved-blade and a horsehoof hilt, only heftier than the current kalis.

I would beg to differ regarding the Malay-made hypothesis. The gangya area features match provenanced Sulu-made kalis that I've disassembled in the past. I've observed that Malay-made keris sundang that were discussed elsewhere in this forum have a particular feature that sets it apart from the Moro-made, please see the red-circled parts (credits to Ashoka Arts and Charles for the attached pics).

That red-circled part highlights how, beyond the gangya separation line, the carved pattern extends further upward, along the slope of the blade and almost going vertical, as compared to Moro-made which only has one or two pattern sequences beyond the separation line, and isn't oriented in an almost-vertical style.

Ian · 27th August 2024, 01:59 AM

Hi Xas,

I think I have commented previously about the similarities between Sulu and Malay kris.

The area that you highlight, in Javanese keris terms, is the greneng. (I don't know a Moro term for this feature.) Typically, the file work extends above and below the line of separation between the gangya and the blade. What you are pointing to is a shorter distance of file work above the line of separation on your kris. I have not looked at this feature specifically. My impression is that the length of the greneng above the line of separation is variable on keris, and not standardized in terms of the number of ron dah, etc. We need a keris expert for that one.

However, your point is well taken. This could indeed be an atypical Sulu blade (as I did mention above), but I think it shows Malay influence for reasons already stated.

As I look at the most recent picture of your kris, which shows the carved area clearly, I note that what the Javanese call lambe gajah (elephant lips) appear on its gandhik. This is very unusual for Moro kris. In the vast majority of Moro kris, going back to "early" kris, that I have looked at the "upper lip" is found at the bottom of the gandhik and the "lower lip" is at the top of the gangya—thus the lambe gajah span the line of separation between the gandhik and the gangya. This contrasts with the "Modern Javanese Keris," which has the lambe gajah towards the base of the gandhik (as also shown on your kris).

If you look at the examples you show of Malay sundang, the one with the ivory pommel has its lambe gajah completely on the gandhik (similar to the "Modern Indonesian Keris" and your kris). This may seem a small esoteric point, but it adds to my assessment of Malay influence for your Sulu kris.

xasterix · 27th August 2024, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Hi Xas,

I think I have commented previously about the similarities between Sulu and Malay kris.

The area that you highlight, in Javanese keris terms, is the greneng. (I don't know a Moro term for this feature.) Typically, the file work extends above and below the line of separation between the gangya and the blade. What you are pointing to is a shorter distance of file work above the line of separation on your kris. I have not looked at this feature specifically. My impression is that the length of the greneng above the line of separation is variable on keris, and not standardized in terms of the number of ron dah, etc. We need a keris expert for that one.

However, your point is well taken. This could indeed be an atypical Sulu blade (as I did mention above), but I think it shows Malay influence for reasons already stated.

As I look at the most recent picture of your kris, which shows the carved area clearly, I note that what the Javanese call lambe gajah (elephant lips) appear on its gandhik. This is very unusual for Moro kris. In the vast majority of Moro kris, going back to "early" kris, that I have looked at the "upper lip" is found at the bottom of the gandhik and the "lower lip" is at the top of the gangyathus the lambe gajah span the line of separation between the gandhik and the gangya. This contrasts with the "Modern Javanese Keris," which has the lambe gajah towards the base of the gandhik (as also shown on your kris).

If you look at the examples you show of Malay sundang, the one with the ivory pommel has its lambe gajah completely on the gandhik (similar to the "Modern Indonesian Keris" and your kris). This may seem a small esoteric point, but it adds to my assessment of Malay influence for your Sulu kris.

Halloo Ian,

Thanks for your points, I understand where you're coming from. A kalis with Malay influence is an acceptable label for me. With the close proximity of Moro and Malay interactions during the pre1900s eras (trade, intermarriage, shared territories, migration, etc), such Malay influences are to be expected in Moro blades, and vice versa (Moro influence on Malay blades). Admittedly I know too little of Malay-made keris sundang to make further differentiations; the only references I've studied were by Gardner (1936) and Frey (1989), plus really helpful inputs from my Malaysian friends, who collect various keris, including Moro kris and kalis.

As a final emphasis- I'd like to focus on the hilt to solidify this sword as being Sulu-identified. From the POV of the peoples of PH and their tradblades, the dress is the "latest ID" for a sword. For example- a Mindanao kris that was captured and re-dressed with Visayan hilt and scabbard (a hybrid one from a semantics POV), ceases to be a Moro kris- from the POV of both Visayan and Moro groups, it's now a Visayan kris.

In a similar manner, a Sulu kalis that was re-dressed with Lumad hilt and scabbard ceases to be kalis, but rather is recognized as a Lumad kris. A Samar-made garab that was re-dressed in Tagalog nobility style is now an itak, or a tabak.

Though the blade may have been originally made by a different ethnolinguistic group or a foreign area- the dress indicates the ID of the last owner, and thus assumes the appropriate ethnolinguistic affiliation and equivalent sword ID (if there is any) for that group.

So, in my mind- the blade may indeed be Sulu-made, Malay-made, Sulu with Malay influence, (or vice versa) or even Mindanao-made. But its undoubtedly Sulu-made hilt identifies the last owner as a Suluanon- and in the POV of Sulu, the equivalent term for keris sundang (Malay) or kris sundang (Mindanao) would be kalis

24th August 2024, 11:52 PM	#3
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,360	Dating this sword Ray, thank you for sharing this interesting sword! If we step back from the sword itself, and think about why Moro kris increased in length and width relative to "early" versions, the prevailing theory is that this was a response to longer and heavier Spanish swords. As you and I have discussed, the same response occurred with several Filipino weapons (e.g., barung) in response to the Japanese swords being used during WWII. If these kris adaptations in response to Spanish swords are correct, why would the Moros wait until the 19th C to implement this change? Surely, one would expect this to occur earlier in the encounter. After all, the two sides had been fighting each other since the 16th C! Looking at the history of the so-called Moro Wars between Spain and the Filipino Muslims, Spain tried to invade the Maguindanao Sultanate in 1591, briefly establishing a garrison in 1596 but abandoned it the following year under intense pressure. The Maguindanao Moros then went on the offensive with several large-scale raids against early Spanish settlements in the Visayas. These were largely successful, and caused the Spanish to reconsider their strategies. A series of peace treaties were signed in 1605, 1608, 1609. War broke out again in 1628, but this time with the Sulu Sultanate following a provocative Spanish act against a Sulu envoy. Spain mounted several large-scale attacks on Jolo in 1628 and 1630, which were repelled. To this point, Spanish successes were few. The Spanish changed tactics and decided to establish a forward base on enemy soil. In 1635, Spain captured Zamboanga and used it as a base for attacking the Sulu and Maguindanao sultanates. The Maguindanao capital of Lamitan was captured in 1637. Attacks against the Sulu capital resulted in the capture of Jolo in 1638. In 1644, the Spanish needed to break off the war and return their troops to Manila to defend against a threatened Chinese attack. A peace treaty was signed in 1645 between Spain and the Moros. Spain returned to Zamboanga in 1728 and built a massive fort. This led to further conflict but the Moros could not expel the Spanish. A stalemate ensued. Eventually peace treaties were signed in 1737. Spain still dreamed of conquest over the Moros. In 1851, a large Spanish force reinvaded Jolo. From then until the end of the Spanish rule there were numerous conflicts as Spain sought to destroy the remaining power bases of the Moros. This would continue under American Colonial rule. So where in this (brief) history would the Moros have decided to modify their kris to combat the larger Spanish swords? Would they have waited until 1851, despite serious existential threats in preceding centuries? I think not. More likely, this was a change implemented when Spain was inflicting defeats on the Moros on their home soil. This might date from the early 18th C, when Spain established its forward base in Zamboanaga, or perhaps earlier when Spain had its initial successes within the Moro homelands during the 1630s and 1640s. Necessity is the mother of invention. When your home is under attack, change is essential to survival. A case can be made, I believe, for significant modifications to the kris as a weapon in the 17th and early 18th C. That such changes might continue with swords made later is to be expected. I have written elsewhere that the current trend in dating Moro sword styles almost exclusively to the 19th and 20th C is mistaken. While the production of some swords may be attributed to this period, I believe the styles are often from (much) earlier times, and we give too little credit to Moro innovation during periods of threat. Returning to your sword, Ray, I don't know when it was made. Could it be 18th C? Perhaps. The pommel looks old enough. However, I think the blade is not that old. It is missing the sogokan and "arrowhead" features of early styles. That's not to say it could not predate 1800, perhaps it is a simpler battle style from that period, but it's more likely 19th C IMHO. Last edited by Ian; 25th August 2024 at 12:04 AM.

25th August 2024, 12:20 AM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,360	Origin of this sword blade Age of this sword was discussed in the previous post. I think the style of this one is atypical for Moro work. Its dress appears to be Sulu: the previous twin asang asang and the hilt style would suggest that. However, the blade is unusual. Although a kalis (i.e., waved blade), the waves are very shallow to the extent that sharpening of the edge has almost eliminated them in places. Shallow luk are fairly common on wider examples of kris mostly from the 19th and 20th C. A central panel of twist core extends almost the whole length of the blade. This is unusual for Moro blades, but is seen fairly commonly on Malayan blades with such a central panel. Also, Malayan kris blades usually have no sogokan or "arrow head" structures. The presence of an odo-odo (mid-line ridge) running the length of the blade is also consistent with a Malayan blade. I can't tell if this is a blade made by a Malayan, or a Malayan blade style made by a Moro. My guess is that it is a Malayan blade that has been dressed in the Sulu style. There seem to be a few of these around, but usually with straight blades (sundang). Last edited by Ian; 25th August 2024 at 12:32 AM.

23rd August 2024, 08:49 PM	#1
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	Apologies for being ambiguous, Ray! I was trying to ask for the tang's cross-section - looks like it actually is rectangular (width greater than thickness) as typical for non-early Moro kris. Regards, Kai

27th August 2024, 01:59 AM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,360	Hi Xas, I think I have commented previously about the similarities between Sulu and Malay kris. The area that you highlight, in Javanese keris terms, is the greneng. (I don't know a Moro term for this feature.) Typically, the file work extends above and below the line of separation between the gangya and the blade. What you are pointing to is a shorter distance of file work above the line of separation on your kris. I have not looked at this feature specifically. My impression is that the length of the greneng above the line of separation is variable on keris, and not standardized in terms of the number of ron dah, etc. We need a keris expert for that one. However, your point is well taken. This could indeed be an atypical Sulu blade (as I did mention above), but I think it shows Malay influence for reasons already stated. As I look at the most recent picture of your kris, which shows the carved area clearly, I note that what the Javanese call lambe gajah (elephant lips) appear on its gandhik. This is very unusual for Moro kris. In the vast majority of Moro kris, going back to "early" kris, that I have looked at the "upper lip" is found at the bottom of the gandhik and the "lower lip" is at the top of the gangya—thus the lambe gajah span the line of separation between the gandhik and the gangya. This contrasts with the "Modern Javanese Keris," which has the lambe gajah towards the base of the gandhik (as also shown on your kris). If you look at the examples you show of Malay sundang, the one with the ivory pommel has its lambe gajah completely on the gandhik (similar to the "Modern Indonesian Keris" and your kris). This may seem a small esoteric point, but it adds to my assessment of Malay influence for your Sulu kris.